REVIEWER PROCESS AND POLICIY
1. Introduction
Environmental and Agriculture Management (EAM) is committed to maintaining the quality, integrity, and credibility of scholarly publications through a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer review process. All submitted research and review manuscripts undergo initial editorial screening and, if deemed suitable, independent peer review before an editorial decision is made.
The journal applies a double-anonymous peer review system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another. Editorial decisions are based on scientific merit, methodological soundness, originality, relevance, and compliance with publication ethics.
2. Initial Editorial Screening
Upon submission, manuscripts are initially examined by the editorial office for completeness and compliance with submission guidelines. The Editor-in-Chief then assesses each manuscript's scientific suitability, novelty, and alignment with the journal's aims and scope, including its apparent methodological adequacy and ethical compliance.
Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's initial editorial or scientific requirements may be rejected without external peer review (desk rejection). Manuscripts considered suitable for further assessment are assigned by the Editor-in-Chief to an Editorial Board member with expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject area.
Authors must disclose closely related manuscripts that are under consideration or in press elsewhere and provide copies when requested by the editor. Simultaneous submission of the same manuscript to multiple journals is not permitted.
3. Peer Review Model and Reviewer Selection
All research and review manuscripts, including those submitted to special issues, are evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject area.
Authors may recommend potential reviewers in their cover letter. When making recommendations, authors are encouraged to suggest at least three qualified individuals and provide their institutional affiliations, institutional email addresses, areas of expertise, and ORCID or Scopus identifiers, where available. Recommended reviewers must not have relevant conflicts of interest, including recent research collaborations or shared institutional affiliations with the authors.
The assigned Editorial Board member acts as the handling editor and is responsible for selecting qualified, independent reviewers. Reviewer suggestions from authors are advisory only and need not be followed.
To maintain anonymity, authors must remove identifying information from manuscript files prepared for review. The editorial office takes reasonable measures to preserve anonymity throughout the review process.
When reviewer reports are substantially conflicting or insufficient, the handling editor may invite additional independent reviewers before making an editorial decision.
4. Review Invitation and Timeline
Reviewers are given 14 calendar days from the date of the review invitation to accept or decline the invitation (Review Response Due Date). The deadline for submitting a completed review report (Review Due Date) is set at 14 calendar days after the scheduled Review Response Due Date. Accordingly, the standard review due date is 28 calendar days after the initial invitation, regardless of whether a reviewer accepts earlier.
Reviewers who cannot meet either deadline should promptly inform the assigned Editorial Board member. When justified, the handling editor may grant an extension or invite an alternative reviewer to maintain an effective and rigorous review process.
5. Editorial Independence and Conflicts of Interest
Editors and reviewers must disclose any financial, personal, professional, or academic relationships that could compromise, or appear to compromise, their impartiality.
Manuscripts submitted by editors, Editorial Board members, or individuals with close professional or institutional relationships to a handling editor must be handled by another appropriately qualified editor without a relevant conflict of interest. Such submissions undergo the same independent peer review standards as other manuscripts.
Editors with conflicts of interest must not participate in reviewer selection, manuscript assessment, or final editorial decisions concerning the affected submission.
6. Reviewer Responsibilities and Ethical Standards
Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, evidence-based, and timely evaluations. Assessments should address originality, scientific contribution, methodological rigor, presentation of results, interpretation of findings, and relevance to the journal.
Reviewers should accept assignments only when they possess appropriate expertise and can meet the review schedule or an agreed extension. They must maintain strict confidentiality and must not disclose, distribute, or use unpublished manuscript content for personal or professional advantage.
Reviewers must promptly inform the handling editor of potential conflicts of interest or suspected ethical concerns, including plagiarism, duplicate publication, data manipulation, or other forms of research misconduct.
Confidential manuscripts, figures, datasets, and supplementary materials must not be uploaded to unauthorized external generative AI services. Reviewers remain personally responsible for the scientific integrity, independence, and confidentiality of their evaluations in accordance with EAM's AI policy.
7. Peer Review Evaluation and Editorial Decisions
Reviewers submit their evaluations and recommendations through the journal's editorial management system. The assigned Editorial Board member considers these reports alongside the manuscript's scientific quality, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal.
Following assessment, one of the following editorial decisions may be issued:
- Accept: The manuscript meets the journal's publication standards and requires no substantive revisions.
- Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited corrections or clarifications before a final decision.
- Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial improvements to its methodology, analysis, interpretation, or presentation.
- Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's scientific, editorial, or ethical standards for publication.
Reviewer recommendations inform, but do not determine, editorial decisions. The assigned Editorial Board member independently makes the final editorial decision on the manuscript under their responsibility following peer review. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for initial screening and assignment of eligible manuscripts to appropriate Editorial Board members. Favorable reviewer recommendations do not guarantee acceptance.
Authors receive the editorial decision together with relevant anonymized reviewer comments. Reviewer identities and confidential review reports are not publicly disclosed.
8. Manuscript Revision and Reassessment
Authors invited to revise their manuscripts must submit the revised version through the existing submission record in the journal's editorial management system rather than creating a new submission.
Revisions must be accompanied by a point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer and editor comment has been addressed. Where a recommendation has not been followed, authors must provide a clear scientific justification.
EAM does not impose a fixed deadline for authors to submit revised manuscripts. Authors may take the time necessary to address the reviewers' and editor's comments carefully and are encouraged to communicate with the assigned Editorial Board member when appropriate. A manuscript will not be treated as withdrawn solely because a predetermined revision period has elapsed.
Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by additional reviewers when necessary. Further rounds of revision may be requested until outstanding scientific and editorial concerns are adequately resolved. Submission of a revised manuscript does not guarantee acceptance.
9. Research Integrity and Ethical Concerns
EAM is committed to preventing publication misconduct and maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record.
When concerns arise regarding plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, inappropriate authorship, citation manipulation, duplicate submission, or compromised peer review, the editorial team may request clarification, supporting documentation, or additional assessment.
Allegations of research misconduct are handled fairly and confidentially, with reference to relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Editorial decisions may be suspended while serious concerns are investigated.
10. Appeals and Complaints
Authors who believe that an editorial decision resulted from a substantive misunderstanding, procedural irregularity, or demonstrable error may submit a reasoned appeal through the journal's official editorial contact channel.
Appeals must clearly identify the grounds for reconsideration and provide supporting evidence. Where practicable, appeals are evaluated by an editor who was not responsible for the original decision. The journal may seek additional independent advice when necessary.
An appeal does not automatically reverse an editorial decision. Complaints concerning reviewer conduct, editorial impartiality, or the integrity of the review process are handled confidentially and in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policies.
11. Final Acceptance and Publication
A manuscript is formally accepted only after the assigned Editorial Board member determines that all essential scientific, ethical, and editorial requirements have been satisfied.
The acceptance date recorded in the published article corresponds to the date of the formal editorial acceptance decision, not the date of galley proof approval.
Following acceptance, the manuscript proceeds to copyediting, typesetting, and proofreading. Authors are responsible for reviewing the galley proof and confirming the accuracy of the final publication materials.
The journal reserves the right to make necessary editorial and formatting adjustments while preserving the scientific meaning and integrity of the accepted manuscript. Substantive changes after acceptance require editorial approval and may necessitate further assessment.
